Fallout Gulper VFX Breakdown | Framestore

Fallout’s fauna - Gulper
Our team crafted Gulper from concept design to complex animation. They brought this grotesque hybrid of human and giant salamander to life, focusing on realistic features and gruesome details focusing on realistic features and gruesome details.
#cgi #vfx #wasteland #creature #conceptart #Fallout #vfxbreakdown

[@HenkvanderVelden]

This was some excellent creature work. Very well done lighting and integration, bravo!

[@KillerTacos54]

Absolutely phenomenal work

[@ronydey2696]

Great ❤ creature mesh sculpt and animation and FX simulation fluid part..great project 💯❤️

[@greenhacker0com]

Of course it was Framestore that made it, that was why it was so good in the show!🥰

[@l.3626]

Water simulation is really insane

[@ababiya_worku]

unblieveble!

[@l.3626]

I just noticed the monster has fingers as teeth 😭😭😭😭😭

[@KrunoslavStifter]

The problem with all this modern pipeline for VFX is that no matter the number of polygons and water sims and whatever, the soon as you sees it on screen you know its CGI because it could be nothing else. We need to bring back the mystery of pre digital era when movie magic was not just a buzz word. I hate to see all that effort in creature design, animation, rendering and all, at the end of the day feels like... ah, we seen it all already. I wish we didn't have such polished pipelines where with enough budget and time you can create anything you want digitally. In the old days you couldn't do that, so you had to be creative and approach it from fresh perspective. Now we all know the workflow, its just how many more polygons do you need in how little time. Maybe we have to go full circle until we come back to movie magic again. Something I feel got lost in all the rendering power we have nowadays.

[@enjon9873]

ok boomer

[@enjon9873]

you wont be posting all these if u would have known the RnD and the hours 3D and VFX artists put in to render a frame like this.

[@KrunoslavStifter]

@@enjon9873 OK, Zoomer.

[@KrunoslavStifter]

@@nixarrowman78 a) CGI if you know what to look for is noticeable in majority of cases, because you know how the effects are made. If you see a creature like you see in this video or some crazy camera motion you know how its done. No matter the effort, or polygon count, what gives it away is the vary nature of the shot. b) you have so called "invisible" VFX, which is mostly paint and roto jobs, set extensions etc. That's fine, I love those, more please. But in your face, obvious VFX has lost its magic because we know it cannot be anything else, and we know its a standardized pipeline of the VFX industry. You can also see the problem with actor performances when they are acting to nothing other than some vague imagined idea of what may or may not be there later. Even when you use virtual sets with bit screen projection, which is a lot better for actors, it is for backdrops not effects where actors are interacting. And the whole thing has become so idiotic, that the training of actors and film directors to give interview of "no CGI" should give you some idea how much over reliance there is on it. If they put a fraction of effort in character, decent new stories and acting and other skills instead of overinflated budgets with DEI working on it, we might be feeling that magic again. But putting a blob of polygons and green screen over everything does not impress me.

[@enjon9873]

Look dude your argument of the result being bad is something i can understand why u hate it BUT..... the very sentence where u say u know how it is made and that's why u think its trash is just stupidity. It's like saying 'oh the food is served hot within 1 min so i know they have microwave oven installed... The food is trash. They should have a fireplace instead to slowly cook it where i can a similar result with more time"

[@porroapp]

Blender?

[@0x384c0]

I guess in the film VFX industry even mentioning Blender will get you immediately fired and blacklisted.

[@porroapp]

@@0x384c0 houdini? unreal?

[@WaspMedia3D]

3DSMax I think ... could be wrong.

[@porroapp]

@@WaspMedia3D ah, ty!

[@davideghirelli4453]

paint